El fin del trabajo

[Dan]

Qué grande Baraka, en su época fuí a verla al cine pero era una copia que desmerecía el metraje original rodado con película de 70 mm. (riéte de los "full frames" y "FullHDs" de ahora) aun así me impactó.

No te pierdas entonces "Samsara", tambien de Ron Fricke, rodada en 70mm y la continuacion natural de "Baraka". Yo la he visto dos veces en cine aqui en Londres, una de ellas en proyeccion de 4K, y ademas me he hecho con el bluray.

Solo que es mas dura y  mas critica. A cualquiera de este foro le encantaria, de verdad. Si no la has visto hazte con ella pero ya.

[Lego]

Acabo de encontrarme, citado en el ZeroHedge, un artículo del MIT sobre tecnología y trabajo.  Aún no lo he leído, que es largo, pero tiene buen pinta. A los favoritos para el otoño.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

traigo una infografía a modo de cartel

[NosTrasladamus]

Dan, a ver si nos puedes comentar algo sobre los "zero hour contracts" que parece que están proliferando en UK... estamos asistitendo en directo a la liquidación de los derechos de los asalariados (la excusa es lo de menos, cualquiera les vale, que si flexibilidad, que si la competitividad, que si "son lentejas")... :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sports-direct-employs-nine-out-of-10-of-staff-on-zerohour-contracts-8736003.html

Sports Direct employs nine out of 10 of staff on 'zero-hour contracts'

UK's biggest sports retailer keeps 20,000 employees on 'casual terms' with no guarantee of work

UK retail giant Sports Direct employs 90 per cent of its workforce on the basis of “zero-hour contracts”, giving them no guarantee of work from one week to the next.

The “casual” system means 20,000 shop floor workers are expected to be available whenever called-upon, but gives them no rights to sick or holiday pay, notice as to when their hours will be, a minimum number of hours per week, or a bonus at the end of the year.

The extraordinary practice, reported by The Guardian, could account for as much as 10 per cent of all zero-hour contract employees in the whole country. It comes as the 2,000 members of staff who are on full-time contracts received huge bonuses in the form of shares worth up to £100,000.

Then, chief executive Dave Forsey said: “The share scheme glues this company together. These schemes are typically only for the executives, but this goes deep into the company. I'm surprised more businesses haven't adopted something like this sooner.”

Zero-hour contracts have come under fire for being unfair to part-time staff. They work on the basis that employers have a pool of people who are “on call”, and who can be used if and when the need arises.

Last month a group of Labour MPs published a report detailing “the experiences of people working on zero-hour contracts”.

In a foreword, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Chuka Umunna said: “The use of zero hours contracts has increased markedly in recent years.

“While there are many employees who want extra flexibility at work, there are real concerns relating to the abuse of zero hours contracts, as well as their wider impact on people at work of their increased use.”

An anonymous employee in Liverpool working on these terms was quoted in the report as saying: “The zero hours contract and casual contracts made me feel that all the power was with employer. It’s depressing and demoralising. I feel I have no rights and constantly question ‘why am I even bothering to work?’”

Since 2004, the estimated number of people in the country employed on these terms went up from 89,000 to 200,000, according to the Office of National Statistics.

While Sports Direct could therefore be contributing as many as one in 10 of all examples of the practice, retailers like Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Argos, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer all confirmed to the Guardian that they do not use zero-hour contracts.

The newspaper also reported that the terms of work for those who are on full-time contracts at Sports Direct mean they can be denied bonuses if their performance is deemed “unsatisfactory”.

Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, said: “It seems quite bizarre that a company would on the one hand be awarding bonuses in this way, and treating other staff in a completely different way.

“I would want Sports Direct to see if there is a possibility of more fixed term contracts. It appears this has been imposed across the board and is inappropriate. How can there be any investment in employees, or training or progression?

”Lots of workers in retail start off part-time on the shop floor and rise to the top, but with zero-hour contracts there is no incentive at all.”

Sports Direct declined to comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/05/mcdonalds-workers-zero-hour-contracts

McDonald's ties nine out of 10 workers to zero-hours contracts

Britain's biggest food chain has 83,000 staff on controversial contract as employers body claims economy needs flexibility
Politicians said McDonald's, the UK’s largest food chain, should offer staff minimum guaranteed hours.

McDonald's has emerged as potentially the biggest zero-hours employer in the private sector after admitting that it employs 90% of its entire workforce in Britain, or 82,800 staff, on the controversial terms.

Politicians said the UK's largest food chain should offer staff minimum guaranteed hours, while also suggesting that the latest revelation increases the pressure on the business secretary, Vince Cable, to ensure that an ongoing review of the contracts is far-reaching.

Zero-hours contracts have been criticised because they offer no guarantee of regular work and no stability of income.

However, the Institute of Directors, which represents 38,000 directors including several bosses of FTSE 100 companies, attacked calls for a ban, claiming the UK could be in the same situation as Italy or Spain without a flexible labour market.

Andy Sawford, a Labour MP who has campaigned to abolish zero-hours contracts, said: "McDonald's could lead on addressing this issue. There will be some employees working 20 to 30 hours a week, week in week out, and it is indefensible not to put those people on contracts. In the ordering of their food they know how to identify customer levels so they cook the right amount, so they could use that same information with staff levels and give employees more certainty."

McDonald's employs 92,000 staff throughout the UK, running 1,200 restaurants. A spokeswoman said prospective employees are asked during the application process to say which days they can work.

She added: "Many of our employees are parents or students who are looking to fit flexible, paid work around childcare, study and other commitments.

"Employee hours are scheduled in advance and we never ask people to be 'on call'.

"The zero-hours contracts which all our hourly-paid employees are on do not affect employee benefit entitlement and all of our employees are entitled to a range of benefits including life assurance, employee discounts and access to a range of training and qualifications."

She said McDonald's has employed zero-hours contract workers since it entered the UK in 1974.

It has also emerged that a rival fast food franchise, Subway, employs hundreds of staff on zero-hours contracts. The Guardian has seen a contract for staff at one of the largest Subway franchisees, Made To Order, which runs more than 100 Subways in Greater Manchester and Yorkshire.

The contract states: "The company has no duty to provide you with work. Your hours of work are not predetermined and will be notified to you on a weekly basis as soon as is reasonably practicable in advance by your store manager. The company has the right to require you to work varied or extended hours from time to time."

It adds that by signing the contract all non-management staff – or "sandwich artists" – waive their right under working time regulations to work no more than 48 hours a week.

Subway said in a statement: "All Subway stores are independently owned and operated by franchisees. As part of their agreement, franchisees are responsible for all employment matters. Franchisees are required to comply with employment law when recruiting, contracting and in all dealings with employees."

By comparison, sandwich chain Pret A Manger said it does not use zero-hours contracts and that all staff are on a minimum of eight guaranteed hours a week.

The latest revelation has led MPs to call for a broader investigation by the government into the issue since the Guardian first disclosed that retailer Sports Direct employs 90% of its 23,000 staff zero-hours contracts.

Alison McGovern, another Labour MP who has campaigned against the contracts, saidthat the issue is clearly more widespread than first thought. She said: "Every day that goes by and we find out more about how widespread the practice is, the more concern there is and the more there needs to be action. We can't ignore this issue any longer because the calls for change are getting louder and louder. Saying it's fine and we don't need to do anything does not address the issue."

The IoD criticised calls for a change to the rules and said banning the contracts would have extremely damaging results for businesses and employees. It said the flexibility was vital to a strong economy.

Alexander Ehmann, head of regulatory policy at the IoD, said: "Calls to ban zero-hours contracts are deeply misguided and any such action would have extremely damaging results. It would hurt thousands of employees who rely on the flexibility such contracts allow and employers, especially small and medium-sized firms, would struggle to hire the staff they need to meet varying demand.

"Countries with a flexible labour market tend to have lower unemployment and higher employment, and one of the reasons that the UK economy has not gone the way of southern Europe is because employers have been able to adapt swiftly to changing demand."

The IoD employs around 200 staff at its London head office on Pall Mall, with 16 catering and bar staff on zero-hours contracts.

[muyuu]

Mucha gente trabaja en ese régimen por aquí, incluso en empresas de renombre en banca o finanzas.

Las condiciones de los "contractors" a veces son similares, pero éstos ganan mucha pasta por hora y tienen normalmente capacidad de negociación.

Estas condiciones son malas para trabajos en los que te puedan substituir fácilmente. Directamente estás como sin contrato, pero legalmente. Es lo normal en "retail" para posiciones bajas, por ejemplo.

[NosTrasladamus]

Mucha gente trabaja en ese régimen por aquí, incluso en empresas de renombre en banca o finanzas.

Las condiciones de los "contractors" a veces son similares, pero éstos ganan mucha pasta por hora y tienen normalmente capacidad de negociación.

Estas condiciones son malas para trabajos en los que te puedan substituir fácilmente. Directamente estás como sin contrato, pero legalmente. Es lo normal en "retail" para posiciones bajas, por ejemplo.

Es un uso interesadamente perverso de contratos que *en teoría* se concibieron para otra cosa (o al menos se legalizaron con la excusa ó pretexto de usarse en otras circunstancias): Puede que esos contratos estén bien para profesionales de altísima cualificación y ultra-cotizados, pero acaban usándose para dejar con el culo al aire a los "currelas rasos". Es como en el cortijo los putos contratos "por obra y servicio" sin fecha de finalización, los contratos temporales que se encadenan uno detrás de otro fraudulentamente, cambiando de empresa -sociedades con el mismo propietario- al currito para que no firme jamás un contrato "indefinido" ó los falsos autónomos...

[Marlow]

No sabía dónde postear esto.
Un estudio reciente en UK que distingue 7 clases sociales en función del capital económico, social y cultural (el artículo no lo comenta, pero son los tres capitales definitorios de clase social que propuso Bourdieu):

Huge survey reveals seven social classes in UK

People in the UK now fit into seven social classes, a major survey conducted by the BBC suggests.

It says the traditional categories of working, middle and upper class are outdated, fitting 39% of people.

It found a new model of seven social classes ranging from the elite at the top to a "precariat" - the poor, precarious proletariat - at the bottom.

More than 161,000 people took part in the Great British Class Survey, the largest study of class in the UK.

Class has traditionally been defined by occupation, wealth and education. But this research argues that this is too simplistic, suggesting that class has three dimensions - economic, social and cultural.

The BBC Lab UK study measured economic capital - income, savings, house value - and social capital - the number and status of people someone knows.

The study also measured cultural capital, defined as the extent and nature of cultural interests and activities.

The new classes are defined as:
•   Elite - the most privileged group in the UK, distinct from the other six classes through its wealth. This group has the highest levels of all three capitals
•   Established middle class - the second wealthiest, scoring highly on all three capitals. The largest and most gregarious group, scoring second highest for cultural capital
•   Technical middle class - a small, distinctive new class group which is prosperous but scores low for social and cultural capital. Distinguished by its social isolation and cultural apathy
•   New affluent workers - a young class group which is socially and culturally active, with middling levels of economic capital
•   Traditional working class - scores low on all forms of capital, but is not completely deprived. Its members have reasonably high house values, explained by this group having the oldest average age at 66
•   Emergent service workers - a new, young, urban group which is relatively poor but has high social and cultural capital
•   Precariat, or precarious proletariat - the poorest, most deprived class, scoring low for social and cultural capital

The researchers said while the elite group had been identified before, this is the first time it had been placed within a wider analysis of the class structure, as it was normally put together with professionals and managers.

At the opposite extreme they said the precariat, the poorest and most deprived grouping, made up 15% of the population.

The sociologists said these two groups at the extremes of the class system had been missed in conventional approaches to class analysis, which have focused on the middle and working classes.

Methodology

Professor of sociology at Manchester University, Fiona Devine, said the survey really gave a sense of class in 21st Century Britain.

"What it allows us is to understand is a more sophisticated, nuanced picture of what class is like now.

"It shows us there is still a top and a bottom, at the top we still have an elite of very wealthy people and at the bottom the poor, with very little social and cultural engagement," she said.

"It's what's in the middle which is really interesting and exciting, there's a much more fuzzy area between the traditional working class and traditional middle class.
"There's the emergent workers and the new affluent workers who are different groups of people who won't necessarily see themselves as working or middle class.
"The survey has really allowed us to drill down and get a much more complete picture of class in modern Britain."

The researchers also found the established middle class made up 25% of the population and was the largest of all the class groups, with the traditional working class now only making up 14% of the population.

They say the new affluent workers and emergent service workers appear to be the children of the "traditional working class," which they say has been fragmented by de-industrialisation, mass unemployment, immigration and the restructuring of urban space.

BBC Lab UK worked with Prof Mike Savage of the London School of Economics and Prof Devine on the study.

The findings have been published in the Sociology Journal and presented at a conference of the British Sociological Association on Wednesday.

Researchers asked a series of questions about income, house value, savings, cultural and leisure activities and the occupations of friends.

They were able to determine a person's economic, social and cultural capital scores from the answers and analysed the scores to create its class system.

The GBCS was launched online in January 2011, but data showed participants were predominantly drawn from the well-educated social groups.

To overcome this a second identical survey was run with a survey company GFK, with a sample of people representing the population of the UK as a whole, using the information in parallel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058

[TEOTWAIKI]

No sabía dónde postear esto.
Un estudio reciente en UK que distingue 7 clases sociales en función del capital económico, social y cultural (el artículo no lo comenta, pero son los tres capitales definitorios de clase social que propuso Bourdieu):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058

Desde el artículo se puede acceder a un test que ideó la BBC para ver a que clase perteneces, yo lo hice en su momento (es de primeros de Abril), creo que me dio que era la reina de Inglaterra o algo, ya no me acuerdo... 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

[wanderer]

No sabía dónde postear esto.
Un estudio reciente en UK que distingue 7 clases sociales en función del capital económico, social y cultural (el artículo no lo comenta, pero son los tres capitales definitorios de clase social que propuso Bourdieu):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22007058

Desde el artículo se puede acceder a un test que ideó la BBC para ver a que clase perteneces, yo lo hice en su momento (es de primeros de Abril), creo que me dio que era la reina de Inglaterra o algo, ya no me acuerdo... 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

Pues a mí me salió que era la reina Ona... 

[burbunova]

A saber si es este el hilo adecuado, pero ahí va.

El Parlamento indio aprueba subsidiar comida a 800 millones de personas.

El Parlamento de India aprobó este lunes, después de un debate de nueve horas, el programa que subsidiará comida a los pobres para “acabar con el hambre y la malnutrición”. Sonia Gandhi, presidenta del gobernante Partido del Congreso, pidió a los parlamentarios dejar atrás las diferencias y enviar “un fuerte mensaje de que India puede responsabilizarse de su seguridad alimentaria”.

Gandhi rechazó, sin embargo, las preguntas que se le hicieron después sobre si el país puede implementar el programa, de casi 20.000 millones de dólares (15.000 millones de euros), con el que pretende subsidiar alimentos a dos terceras partes de la población (casi 800 millones de personas). “La pregunta no es si tenemos suficientes recursos o si beneficiará a los agricultores. Tenemos que encontrar la manera de hacerlo”, dijo.

[...]

El país asiático ya cuenta con el sistema de distribución alimentaria más grande del mundo. Pero, ahora, de ser aprobado por el Senado, lo que es muy probable según los expertos, sería más grande y atendería mejor a los más necesitados. Se subsidiarían cinco kilos de granos por mes a los casi 800 millones de beneficiados.

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/26/actualidad/1377549170_512430.html

[NosTrasladamus]

En este sistema -un capitalismo hiperfinanciarizado- cada vez más aberrante y disfuncional, que necesita de cada vez más artificios -legales, de mercadotecnia (como la estrategia de márketing de la obsolescencia planificada), propagandísticos- y capas de superestructura por lo demás perfectamente prescindibles, para seguir asegurando beneficios lucro a las élites: por un lado aumenta la miseria y el desempleo y por otro el powerpointismo y el i-Ceoismo:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/emploi/2013/09/11/09005-20130911ARTFIG00384-comment-la-societe-produit-des-metiers-inutiles.php

Comment la société produit des métiers «inutiles»
Selon David Graeber, anthropologue américain, l'économie contemporaine créerait une multitude de métiers «inutiles» notamment dans le secteur des services (consulting, management, RH, communication...) Il estime aussi que ces travailleurs en seraient conscients.

Notre métier sert-il réellement à quelque chose? Ressentez-vous parfois une inutilité profonde lorsque vous excécutez les tâches que vous êtes sommés d'effectuer au travail? En pleine période estivale, la tribune de l'anthroplogue américain David Graeber intitulée «Du phénomène des jobs à la con» a eu l'effet d'une bombe. Selon lui, le monde du travail actuel regorge de métiers inutiles, qui découlent directement des progrès technologiques. Le secteur de métiers visés: les services. Ressources humaines, management, consulting, finance, conseil et une grande partie des emplois de «bureau»... Des métiers qui ne sont pas indispensables mais qui sont pourtant créés en masse. La cause principale? La tertiarisation de l'économie et l'augmentation de la part prise par les postes plus qualifiés.

L'anthropologue cite l'économiste anglais John Maynard Keynes , qui avait prédit dans une fiction - dès 1930 - que l'on pourrait se contenter de travailler 15 heures par semaine un siècle plus tard et que l'on s'ennuierait tellement que le principal problème collectif serait de répartir le travail.

David Graeber, qui se définit comme anarchiste, critique en fait le principe même de la division du travail. En substance, on pourrait donc penser que sa perception du travail et de l'emploi est manichéenne, avec d'un côté les métiers indispensables, qui «servent» véritablement à quelque chose (tous les métiers manuels ou pragmatiques; les boulangers, les médecins, les éboueurs...) et de l'autre les métiers non indispensables qui ne sont que des postures et qui servent uniquement à nous «occuper». Mais tout en affirmant ses propos, David Graeber indique qu'il n'a - comme tout le monde - aucune légitimité pour qualifier certains boulots d'utiles et d'autres d'inutiles.
Créer du sens dans son travail

David Graeber estime également que les personnes concernées sont conscientes de l'inutilité de leurs tâches. «La plupart des gens qui font ces métiers en sont en fin de compte conscients. Il y a une classe entière de salariés qui, quand vous les rencontrez à des soirées et leur expliquez que vous faites quelque chose qui peut être considéré comme intéressant, éviteront de discuter de leur métier. Mais donnez-leur quelques verres et ils se lanceront dans des tirades expliquant à quel point leur métier est stupide et inutile» a-t-il déclaré.

Pour la sociologue du travail Danièle Linhart, le point de vue de Graeber est trop radical et ne reflète pas la réalité de l'état d'esprit qui anime les personnes travaillant dans les métiers concernés. Pour elle, ces employés ne sont pas conscients de faire un métier «inutile», et ne se résigneront en aucun cas à l'admettre. «Déjà, il est déplacé de qualifier d'utile ou inutile des métiers qui composent la société. Ensuite, cette vision du travail est très pessimiste et n'est pas en adéquation avec ce que pensent les salariés, et les cadres, plus particulièrement.»

S' il est effectivement fréquent que les cadres aient le sentiment d'être intellectuellement insatisfaits de leur travail, et d'avoir fait le tour de leur secteur d'activité, leur état d'esprit ne passe pas pour autant aux extrêmes des lamentations et de la résignation. Au contraire. «En cas cas d'ennui profond ou d'insatisfaction, ils chercheront alors soit à faire autre chose et à changer d'air, soit à trouver une utilité symbolique, du sens à leur travail. Il me semble peu pertinent de dire qu'aujourd'hui, les cadres se sentent inutiles. Je pense au contraire qu'ils ont de grosses capacités pour trouver et retrouver du sens à leur travail» analyse Danièle Linhart.

http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs
Posted on August 17, 2013 by admin   

Ever had the feeling that your job might be made up? That the world would keep on turning if you weren’t doing that thing you do 9-5? David Graeber explored the phenomenon of bullshit jobs for our recent summer issue – everyone who’s employed should read carefully…


Illustration by John Riordan

On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber.

In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

Why did Keynes’ promised utopia – still being eagerly awaited in the ‘60s – never materialise? The standard line today is that he didn’t figure in the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we’ve collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment’s reflection shows it can’t really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the ‘20s, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones, or fancy sneakers.

So what are these new jobs, precisely? A recent report comparing employment in the US between 1910 and 2000 gives us a clear picture (and I note, one pretty much exactly echoed in the UK). Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers” tripled, growing “from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.” In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones.

These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.”

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organising or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets.

The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.

Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all that anyone really does.

I think this is actually a pretty accurate description of the moral dynamics of our own economy.

*

Now, I realise any such argument is going to run into immediate objections: “who are you to say what jobs are really ‘necessary’? What’s necessary anyway? You’re an anthropology professor, what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And indeed a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.) And on one level, this is obviously true. There can be no objective measure of social value.

I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless? Not long ago I got back in touch with a school friend who I hadn’t seen since I was 12. I was amazed to discover that in the interim, he had become first a poet, then the front man in an indie rock band. I’d heard some of his songs on the radio having no idea the singer was someone I actually knew. He was obviously brilliant, innovative, and his work had unquestionably brightened and improved the lives of people all over the world. Yet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he’d lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school.” Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

There’s a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law? (Answer: if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.) But even more, it shows that most people in these jobs are ultimately aware of it. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a corporate lawyer who didn’t think their job was bullshit. The same goes for almost all the new industries outlined above. There is a whole class of salaried professionals that, should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely. Give them a few drinks, and they will launch into tirades about how pointless and stupid their job really is.

This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment. Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish-fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.  Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It’s even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It’s as if they are being told “but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?”

If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly its financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.

David Graeber is a Professor of Anthropology at the London School of Economics. His most recent book, The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement, is published by Spiegel & Grau.

[Republik]

Yo a esto lo llamo "la era del gilitrabajo".

[wanderer]

Buenísimo el artículo, Nostra. Sin embargo, lo de pagar salarios a gente para que haga el canelo y así reconducir su ira, sólo lo veo posible en un mundo de tierra plana dónde el crecimiento económico está siempre asegurado. Ahora que parece que hemos entrado en una era definitivamente deflacionaria, se me hace difícil imaginar que puedan seguir con esos distractores.

Y como ya he dicho en algunas otras ocasiones, no considero que la búsqueda del pleno empleo sea ni posible, ni tan siquiera deseable. Se debe procurar el pleno ocio, y desacralizar el trabajo<sup>*

*</sup>: Que no el esfuerzo motivado por la consecución personal de un objetivo.

[muyuu]

[muyuu]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/how-many-jobs-are-most-endangered-by.html

Un artículo que cuantifica los actuales trabajos en EEUU que pueden ser automatizados durante las próximas 2 décadas en un 45%.

[Cadavre Exquis]

Al hilo de lo comentado por muyuu

http://www.kurzweilai.net/oms-working-paper-on-the-future-of-employment-how-susceptible-are-jobs-to-computerisation

Nearly half of US jobs could be at risk of computerization, Oxford Martin School study shows
Transport, logistics, and office roles most likely to come under threat
September 19, 2013

Nearly half of U.S. jobs could be susceptible to computerization over the next two decades, a study from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology suggests.

The study, a collaboration between Dr. Carl Benedikt Frey (Oxford Martin School) and Dr. Michael A. Osborne (Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford), found that jobs in transportation, logistics, and office/administrative support are at “high risk” of automation.

More surprisingly, occupations within the service industry are also highly susceptible, despite recent job growth in this sector, they say.

“We identified several key bottlenecks currently preventing occupations being automated,” says Osborne. “As big data helps to overcome these obstacles, a great number of jobs will be put at risk.”


The probability of computerization (0 =none; 1=certain) for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010 occupational categories, along with the share in low, medium and high probability categories. The probability axis can also be seen as a rough timeline, where high-probability occupations are likely to be substituted by computer capital relatively soon. Note that the total area under all curves is equal to total U.S. employment. (Credit: Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne)

The study examined more than 700 detailed occupation types, noting the types of tasks workers perform and the skills required. By weighting these factors, as well as the engineering obstacles currently preventing computerization, the researchers assessed the degree to which these occupations may be automated in the coming decades.

The probability of computerization for the occupation types ranges from recreational therapists (the lowest ) to (thankfully) telemarketers, the highest probability (see report Appendix for the full list).


Wage and education level as a function of the probability of computerization (the red line is weighted by the number of people employed in each occupation). Their model predicts a shift from the computerization of middle-income jobs to computers mainly substituting for low-income, low-skill workers over the next decades. Note that both plots share the legend. (Credit: Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne)

A move to ‘creative and social intelligence’ tasks

“Our findings imply that as technology races ahead, low-skilled workers will move to tasks that are not susceptible to computerization, i.e., tasks that require creative and social intelligence,” the paper states.

For example, while high-risk sales occupations (cashiers, counter and rental clerks, and telemarketers) interactive tasks, they do not necessarily require a high degree of social intelligence.

“For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.”

Low-risk occupations

On the other hand, generalist occupations requiring knowledge of human heuristics, and specialist occupations
involving the development of novel ideas and artifacts, are the least susceptible to computerization, the findings show.

“Most management, business, and finance occupations, which are intensive in generalist tasks requiring social intelligence, are largely confined to the low-risk category. The same is true of most occupations in education, healthcare, as well as arts and media jobs. …

“The low susceptibility of engineering and science occupations to computerization, on the other hand, is largely due to the high degree of creative intelligence they require … although it is possible that computers will fully substitute for workers in these occupations over the long-run.”

Frey said the United Kingdom is expected to face a similar challenge to the U.S. “While our analysis was based on detailed datasets relating to U.S. occupations, the implications are likely to extend to employment in the UK and other developed countries,” he said.

The working paper is available from the program’s website: (http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk).

REFERENCES:
Carl Benedikt Frey, Michael A. Osborne, The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?, September 17, 2013

Saludos